Continued Efforts To Legislate Ideals

This past summer, I began a mild debate on a fledgling group in North Dakota whose bent is to outlaw “shooting captive deer, elk and other exotic mammals behind escape-proof fences”. If you would like to catch up on previous articles, you can find them here, here, here and here.

This group calls itself the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. There will always be the debate about ethics and no two people can ever agree completely on what is ethical and what isn’t ethical when it comes to hunting or killing for that matter. What happens is when you have a group of individuals who believe they can set the standards on ethics, it creates a myriad of problems, most of which when combined will create far greater problems than anything they are tying to change.

I would like to take material from the NDHFC website to show a point. This is a quote this group uses as the keystone for their efforts.

“Voluntary adherence to an ethical code elevates the self-respect of the sportsman, but it should not be forgotten that voluntary disregard of the code degenerates and depraves him.” Aldo Leopold, “A Sand County Almanac”, 1949. Oxford University Press, New York.

I am left to wonder if anyone in this group recognizes the word “voluntary”? Is there a difference between seeking the voluntary adherence to an ethical code and forcing those to comply with someone else’s? I’ll repeat myself and say that ethics is difficult to define and is very personal. I’ll also rightly admit that the best way to teach or promote an ethical adherence is by example. Nothing will be taught by forcing some to have to follow the beliefs of others. This isn’t what this country was founded on.

And this is where I will get the argument that groups such as this have the right to bring initiatives to the voting booths and let the voters decide. I have never said anyone didn’t. The problems are varied and just as equally as these groups have a right to campaign the citizens of North Dakota into believing their “brave new world” is the answer, I have the right to present reasons why to the contrary.

I have no issue with the NDHFC group and their perspective on what they deem to be fair chase and ethics. If an individual wants to conform to those same imposed ethical standards, they certainly are free to do so. I just don’t believe legislating it is the way to promote it. Once again from the website.

We base our support of hunting on sound science and ethical behavior applied in the interest of wild game, not based on the economic and ethical expedience of those engaged in the practice of high fence killing. Shooting tame deer, elk and exotic mammals inside escape proof fences is unethical and a poor example for our children and grandchildren.

I believe it is safe to say that nearly every state fish and game department, hunting club, etc. base their support of hunting on sound science and ethical behavior. This is why each state has rules. These rules are to promote and protect the scientific management of our game animals and to promote public safety.

They show no support and therefore no regard for aspects of the state’s economy that they have taken upon themselves to deem as negligible. Those who, as free Americans, chose to engage in the industry of ranching animals such as deer, elk, etc., are now in danger of losing everything because a group wants power over them. I wonder how members of this group would feel if their livelihood was being taken away by the same means by others who want power over them?

Does the practice of hunting behind fences or the so-called “innocent slaughter” of these domestic animals set a poor example for our children and grandchildren? What do you say to the millions of ranchers across American who have “slaughtered” their animals for centuries? Now our farmers and anyone who has killed a head of cattle, sheep, goat, elk or deer is some kind of unethical monster that needs to be disbarred from our society? Is this group also in the practice of legislating how parents are to raise their children? Evidently they don’t feel that any of the rest of us know how to sit down with our children and explain about the realities of life. Instead we should disregard the rights of others, trample all over their property rights and put ranchers out on the street. This sets a far greater example to our children and grandchildren than explaining the truths behind ranching.

One has to question the content that the NDHFC puts up on their website. Here’s what they say about those who run elk ranches.

The Elk pictured above isn’t wild and will never be wild. When this bull grows “trophy quality” antlers, something the owner will guarantee by feeding the bull supplements that stimulate antler growth, the Elk will be a target for a so-called “hunter” for something the High Fence Industry mislabels a “hunt”. The practice of shooting these tame domestic animals inside escape proof fences is what we oppose and seek to ban with this initiative.

It is one thing to suggest to the public that someone paying a fee to shoot and kill an animal to take home and eat is unethical but I think that unless the laws that govern elk ranching in North Dakota are far different than other states, ranchers are not allowed under law to feed their animals illegal supplements for the sole purpose of growing antlers. Ranchers are smart and know their business. They know how to yield big antlers strictly from breeding practices. This false accusation that elk ranchers beef their animals up on steroids and other illegal drugs has gone on for some time. I would presume that if the NDHFC has proof of this accusation, they should make it public, otherwise they should remove this statement from their website.

This debate is far from over. The citizens of North Dakota will have to make the decision, providing NDHFC can get enough signatures to get their initiative on the November 2008 ballot. Unfortunately, the information the voters get won’t be all facts. Perhaps millions of dollars will be spent to accomplish what? I can tell you one thing it will accomplish. If this initiative were to pass, the likes of the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and tons of other animal rights groups will be foaming at the mouth to get into North Dakota and continue the onslaught to end hunting once and for all. If you don’t believe me, talk to people in other states who are dealing with similar issues or you can continue to bury your head in the sand.

I would like to know what a group like NDHFC would answer someone who asks this: HSUS, PETA, et. al. view all hunting and killing of animals as unethical. I assume you will not support these groups when they come to North Dakota to put a stop to your hunting or to some other group that wants to put an end to you or your friends’ businesses. If not, how can you justifiably do the same as these groups in forcing your ethics onto others and at the same time running somebody out of business? Isn’t this the epitome of hypocrisy?

I would like to leave readers with this statement that was made in an article in the Dickinson Press yesterday by Mitch Feininger, who, according to the article, supports the initiative and is a hunter.

“I have never been to one of these operations because I feel they are immoral and unethical,” he said. “One does not need to participate in something they consider immoral or unethical to consider it wrong.”

I don’t think it is illegal to visit an elk or deer hunting ranch nor do I think a visit is immoral. I’m assuming Feininger believes actually participating in a hunt of this kind as being immoral and unethical. It is too bad that people will blindly cast a ballot simply by what one group has told them. I am sure most ranch owners would welcome a visitor.

Tom Remington